Systematic review and meta‐analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions. Issue 1 (1st February 2016)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Systematic review and meta‐analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions. Issue 1 (1st February 2016)
- Main Title:
- Systematic review and meta‐analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions
- Authors:
- Arezzo, Alberto
Passera, Roberto
Marchese, Nicola
Galloro, Giuseppe
Manta, Raffaele
Cirocchi, Roberto - Abstract:
- Abstract : Background and aims: This systematic review and meta‐analysis compares the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the treatment of flat and sessile colorectal lesions >20 mm preoperatively assessed as noninvasive. Methods: We reviewed the literature published between January 2000 and March 2014. Pooled estimates of the proportion of patients with en bloc, R0 resection, complications, recurrence, and need for further treatment were compared in a meta‐analysis using fixed and random effects. Results: A total of 11 studies and 4678 patients were included. The en bloc resection rate was 89.9% for ESD vs 34.9% for EMR patients (RR 1.93 p < 0.001). The R0 resection rate was 79.6% for ESD vs 36.2% for EMR patients (RR 2.01 p < 0.001). The rate of perforation was 4.9% for the ESD group and 0.9% for EMR (RR 3.19, p < 0.001), while the rate of bleeding was 1.9% for ESD and 2.9% for EMR (RR 0.68, p = 0.070). Therefore, the overall need for further surgery, including surgery for oncologic reasons and surgery for complications, was 7.8% for ESD and 3.0% for EMR (RR 2.40, p < 0.001). Conclusions: ESD achieves a higher rate of en bloc and R0 resection compared to EMR, at the cost of a higher risk of complications. This, added to an increased need for surgery for oncologic reasons for a plausible tendency to extend indication for endoscopic excision, increases the risk of further surgery after ESD.
- Is Part Of:
- United European Gastroenterology journal. Volume 4:Issue 1(2016:Feb.)
- Journal:
- United European Gastroenterology journal
- Issue:
- Volume 4:Issue 1(2016:Feb.)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 4, Issue 1 (2016)
- Year:
- 2016
- Volume:
- 4
- Issue:
- 1
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2016-0004-0001-0000
- Page Start:
- 18
- Page End:
- 29
- Publication Date:
- 2016-02-01
- Subjects:
- Colorectal adenoma -- endoscopic mucosal resection -- endoscopic submucosal dissection -- systematic review -- meta‐analysis
Gastroenterology -- Periodicals
Periodicals
616.33005 - Journal URLs:
- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/loi/20506414 ↗
http://www.uk.sagepub.com ↗
http://ueg.sagepub.com/ ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1177/2050640615585470 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 2050-6406
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 16471.xml